Skip to main content

About your Search

20121003
20121003
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
is a couple brief presentations and open it up to a panel discussion. the first presentation will be michael scherer from "time" magazine what kind of give us the landscape of money and politics, what's really happening. i'm going to run through a little bit of some of the questions that i think we might want to be asking that are sort of you on the sticker shock question. do that pretty quickly. then we'll be joined by trevor potter, katherine mangu-ward -- trevor potter is a partner, and often known as the lawyer for stephen colbert's super pac. ali many of us have known him for many years but now the world knows him. and katherine mangu-ward is a fellow here at new america and the managing editor of magazines. so with no more a do i will thank you all for coming and turn it over to michael. >> someone who knew trevor when he was a lawyer for john mccain, agenda was a pretty important job, nothing like being a lawyer for stephen colbert. maybe one day i can say i work for comedy central, too. people will be impressed. i just want to give a brief overview. this is out to a graphic we ran in
presentation will be michael from "time" magazine to give the land scape in politics and what's happening. i'll run through a little -- some of the questions that i think we might m to be asking, the beyond sticker shock questions, do that quickly, and then we'll -- and then we'll be joined by trevor potter, katherine -- trevor potter, a partner in captain and drive, and dale. we know him for years, but now the world knows him, and katherine maggie ward is a fellow here at new america and editing manager of "reason" magazine. in addition to moderating, she can provide provocation which is useful. with no further adieu, thank you, all, for coming, and i'll tern it over to michael. >> i wonder who knew trevor when he was a lawyer for john mccain, an important job, nothing like being a lawyer for steven cobehr. maybe one day i can work for comedy central and people can be impressed. a brief overview. this is a graphic we ran in "time" at the end of july this summer trying the best at that moment in time to project out where the money was comes from and what the difference would be in terms of v
of the debate. in 1988, michael dukakis could have had help not looking so cold in his response. >> we have a professor at the george washington university, john sides. when you have those moments that reinforce, either good or for ill, to a candidate, how important or damaging can these be? >> candidate debates in a general election to not move the polls a lot. only in a close race. in general, i think these dramatic moments in debates are not necessarily game changes for the average american voter. >> you wrote, usually the candidates fight to a draw. it is hard in that context to have a stunning victory or a terrible defeat. can you elaborate? >> the candidates spend a lot of time trying to lower their expectations about the performance and portray the other person as this great orator. in reality, the candidates spend a lot of time prepping for the debates and they are very good at it. they have read a lot of material and memorize a lot of material. in that context, it is hard for a candidate to really make a big enough mistake to actually swing opinion too strongly to his opponent. >>
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)